The freedom of speech is meaningless unless it means the freedom of the person who thinks differently.
Said by Rosa Luxumberg, I believe, in support of Holocaust denier, David Iriving.

Dont forget, Irving did jail time (in Austria admittedly) for the POTENTIAL of uttering an unwelcome thought.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3Hg-Y7MugU

Freedom of speech should mean EXACTLY what it says on the tin.

[1] It’s really the old question of whether or not I have the right to shout “Fire! Fire!” in a crowded theatre. Most people think not. (And so do I FWIW)

Again, most people would place incitement to murder (whether in the name of religion or not) in the same category.

….and then I read Claude’s article further down the page. Balance is needed. The right of “free speach” is not a right toincite hatred.

everyone has the right to hold opinions without interference, and has the right to freedom of expression, the exercise of which carries with it special duties and responsibilities and may therefore be subject to limitations as are provided for by law

I agree with the above up until the word responsibilities, but as soon as you begin to limit free speech by law you no longer have free speech. You are either free to express whatever view you wish or you are not. And religions need no special protection.

Of course free speech does not mean that the speaker has an entitlement to say anything in any circumstances and avoid legal responsibility for the consequences. Thus the man shouting fire in the theatre might well be charged with breach of the peace or, if somone dies in the resulting stampede, with manslaughter.

The ability to watch the film “Fitna “, publish a book similar to “Satanic Verses” or question religious belief will be reduced . It used to be the case there were far more dictatorships than democracies , is this still the case? Basically it is emotional maturity. Democracy requires requires emotional maturity to work which means the ability to cope with ones beliefs being examined and in cases, being ridiculed. The ability to put one’s self in someone else’s position; to respect other people’s views, to criticise one’s self means that an individual does not consider themselve’s to be the centre of the universe. To laugh at one’s self . To be flexible in outlook such that one can always learn . Dictatorships puts themselves on pedestal and threatens violence against those who question their position; above all they hate and fear the the acts of enquiry and the threat of ridicule. Dictatorships are brittle and lack the emotional maturity to learn from mistakes and grow. After all ,a dictatorship is always right.

It is time that freedom of speech was supported in this country above all else. Far too many self interest groups want our freedoms curtailed in case they are offended. People flying off the handle because they are offended are nothing more than petty dictators.

Offence is not an objective state such as a physical injury; it is an emotional response to a supposed slight. The more brittle and fragile a person’s ego , the easier they are offended.The more rigid in outlook, pompous in nature and certaint in their superiority of their belief , invariably the more fragile their ego. Some of the greatest treasures of this country is our sense of humour; the ability to laugh at one’s self and and freedom to ridicule the pompous. The political cartoons of the 18 century ridiculing various aspects of life are some of our greatest treasures.

Incitement to hatred is a lame duck IMHO – incitement only makes sense when there is a big enough population willing to be incited.

In fact, the drivel of various extremists can serve as a useful as a barometer to calculate the size, or depth of feeling amongst certain groups (who may feel disenfranchised for one reason or another).

The problem is not so much one or two skinhead with placards daubed with words like ‘poof’ or ‘paki’ (although such people are hardly to be applauded) but the SIZE of their audience saying similar things.

Courts or jail will do little to alter attitudes/beliefs throughout the wider community and it is these that we need to keep working on.

#1 – Rosa Luxemburg died almost twenty years before Irving was born. I guess you’re thinking of someone else?

Thanks, twoseventwo – Luxumberg reference taken from Hitchen’s address (highlighted above).

From memory I did recall a Jewish academic arguing against jail time for Irving.
A quick google unearths the specifics – it was Deborah Lipstadt who had already thrashed Irving in court (over Holocaust denial).

Prof Lipstadt said – “I am uncomfortable with imprisoning people for speech. Let him go and let him fade from everyone’s radar screens.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4578534.stm

Sorry for any inaccuracies.

“[1] It’s really the old question of whether or not I have the right to shout “Fire! Fire!” in a crowded theatre. Most people think not. (And so do I FWIW)”

Well that depends on the rules of the theatre. We accept that certain organisations can prohibit freedom of speech as part of the rules for being members/visting their property. However, if some strange theatre owner wished to allow people to shout “fire” I wouldn’t expect the government to outlaw it.

As long as mankind has free will he is capable of ignoring incitement. Therefore I do not consider incitement to hatred to be something that should be outlawed.

[9]

However, if some strange theatre owner wished to allow people to shout “fire” I wouldn’t expect the government to outlaw it.

Oh yes you would. You’d expect the government to license theatres so that they were safe (e.g. adequate fire precautions) and you’d expect that license to include a requirement for third-party liability insurance which your hypothetical theatre owner wouldn’t get in those circumstances.

You would expect the government to do this for theatres, sports arenas etc because it simply isn’t practicable for each individual who wishes to use them to undertake their own risk assessment.

One of the arguments Geert Wilders used was that if Mein Kampf is banned, then the Koran should also be banned as it is equally bilious. Now, I think there is a lot in the Koran that is objectionable. But why not say that the Koran should be legal, Mein Kampf should be legal, & we should have a good slanging match between the far right, decentists, excuse-making “leftists”, Islaimists & what have you?

You see, we blundered into an authoritarian trap by well-meaning efforts to ban X, which then led to calls for the banning of Y. Better to have a self-confident secularist state, strong on its own foundations, which is able to withstand the challenge by unflinchingly confronting the theocrats.

It must never be forgotten that it is ordinary Muslms who are the victims of Islamism, just as humble folk have always suffered the hangover from great men’s drunken binges on ideology. They should be offered our support in their demands for liberty, such as are being issued by oppositionists in Iran & every other country which groans under the knobheads’ yoke. The “respect” shown to theocrats damages the people whose side the left is supposed to be on.

This lumping together of all people in X category is what racists & excuse-makers do alike, & for example those antisemites who do not realise that many Jews inside & outside Israel are not supporters of an aggressive foreign policy & back a two-state solution or some such. It is also responsible for the utter blindness towards abuses if they are carried out by people we deem acceptable.

Regrettably, it seems that only opposition movements inside theocracies have adequate bollocks to take their stand in defence of secular values. The cowardice of all political parties in this country is staggering.

Oh who cares? Everyone knows this is meaningless.

I am waiting for the usual suspects of moronic brownshirts trolls who normally come on here spouting the beliefs of Ayn Rand, to now defend the rights of religion.

I agree with #13, BUT

if forced to take a position on this, I think I’d support it. (I can already see several people rolling their eyes in lack of surprise).

You can be tolerant and respectful of a religion or belief whilst still criticising it. In fact the most wide-ranging application of this (in the unlikely event it was to be taken seriously) will be on what leading representatives of religions can say about each other, which will make it more difficult for eg some Christians and some Muslims to spread lies & whip up hatred about each others’ faiths, rather than engaging in inter-faith dialogue and respectfully exploring areas of agreement and disagreement.

This division between criticising people and criticising a faith is false. You cannot criticise a faith without also criticising those who follow it (which is fine, but it means you should do so respectfully).

Freedom of speech should protect people–not religion,and if possible–protect us from religion.
The “shouting fire in a crowded theatre”, analogy, is becoming just a little bit too much an over simplified, cliche / mantra,multi -purpose tool and may require some re-examination as to its usefullness and validity.
It begs the obvious question. What if one believes there if a fire.?Just one more difference of opinon perhaps ?
Leading us right back to square one.Is there a fire or is,nt there.?

Why not have a freedom to criticise (be it religion or whatever) but not a freedom to hate?

You have a duty to shout Fire! in a crowded theatre if you smell smoke and religion has been smoldering away for decades now.

Liberals should be defended our right to piss on the embers.

17 . Shafiq. One cannot legislate against a persons thoughts or feelings, only their actions and words. As Queen Elizabeth said ” She did not want to peer into peoples hearts”.
We are in danger of entering another period when people will once again fear the “Inquisition” or the Government for expressing our opinions.

There is averygood article in the April edition of Prospect Magazine by Kureishi on the Rusdie affair. Quote

” The attacks on Rushdie showed that words can be dangerous. They also showed why critical thought is more important than ever, why blasphemy and immorality need protection. Bust most people, most writers want to keep their head down, live a quiet life. They don’t a bomb in the letter box. . They have succcumbed to fear. “

@Shafiq
it is only when one endevours to read up on the historical aspects of freedom of speech,and the debates.back and forth,pros and cons,that one has a clearer insight into the (paradox) we are confronted with.
It is a freedom which has evoved by trial and error over centuries,and those who wish to impose limitations upon it ,may risk becoming victims themselves of the very limitations they wish to impose.
Also, democratic freedoms such as human rights and freedom of speech can be “misused”by undemocratic and totalitarian ideologies to undermine those same freedoms,by having been allowed the freedom to promote a totalitarian belief system.
The more that the representatives of a particular religion ( there I go censoring myself again),
jump up and down in outrage and offence,often followed with threats of violence,at any percieved insult to their religion by reffering to it as “Hate”,the more suspiscion that there is something to hide.
The word ” respect” could be another word for “censorship”.
In answer to you question.why not have the same freedom as we take with ( another belief system ) politics ? To ridicule,despise and heap contempt upon it.?
Nobody claims that by doing this we are instigating crowds of Nazis to attack politicians in the strreets.

@ Charlie

When I said hate, I meant words that would incite hatred for a certain person or group of people (to the point where violence would be used against them)

@ Journeyman

You can just come out with it. I’m Muslim and I don’t care.

I totally agree with your comment, I just feel we need to have a clear line to show what is allowed and what isn’t. At the moment, we have a grey area, riddled with inconsistencies, where no-one is happy.

21. Shafiq. You make a good point. The problem hatred is an emotional response. One person may take offence easily, someone else would ignore the remark or just laugh at it. If a person is incited to hate , then I would suggest they lack the emotional maturity one would expect of an adult to maintain control of one’s base emotions. Nothings kills quicker than ridicule. Those who try to incite hatred can either be ignored or ridiculed . Whether hate filled skinheads, nazis,communists , trotskyists or ranting religious bigots; they all appear very absurd to me and deserve to be laughed at.

Personally , I would remove the blasphemy laws, greatly reduce the scope of the libel laws and guarantee freedom of speech. People have become far too thin skinned , too easily offended and precious.

TimF @13:

This division between criticising people and criticising a faith is false. You cannot criticise a faith without also criticising those who follow it (which is fine, but it means you should do so respectfully).

But people don’t criticise religiou respectfully, including the author of this article, in choosing the quotations from Johann that he did. The author explicitly states that they cannot respect Christianity or Islam: also Buddhism, which I felt was a little harsh. By calling three of the Big Six childish delusion and making it clear that the disrespect is aimed at anyone who has a spiritual paradigm at all, they’re denigrating my religious practice by implication [1]. Since my ethics, honour code and philosophy are in large part informed and constructed around my spiritual choices, that means the poster has no respect for me, either.

Fortunately, I’m in a position of not having to care very much. Not everyone is so lucky.

[1] I’m not a subscriber to any of the Big Six. I am a spiritually active celebrant of a Census-recognised religion.

“It is individuals who have rights and not religions,” said Canadian diplomat Terry Cormier. Canada’s criticism was echoed by European Union countries, all of which voted against the proposal.

The council is dominated by Muslim and African countries. Muslim nations have argued that religions, in particular Islam, must be shielded from criticism in the media and other areas of public life.

There is something fundamentally wrong where the domination of a said body is used to benefit its own ends – that means in a short while that said body will become meaningless and therefore die.

@Shafiq
“we have a grey area riddled with inconsistencies ,where no one is happy ”

One reason we need analysis and knowledge of the historical evolution that freedom of speech has taken, is because it is not was never in its evolution,quiet the uncomplex and obvious matter,that many suppose it to be.
The mistake is percieving this freedom to be just one more western , decadent ,hedonistic,extravagance that craves license,out of shear orgastic,sadistic pleasure,to whip up scorn for religion for its own sake. ( Religion having traditionally invited contempt and skeptiscism in the modern West and Atheism in Europe,the status-quo )
The “Holocaust”and other genocidal atrocities have made ther own contribution to this association.
In Canada,Jewish lobby groups spent many years and effort succeding in having legislation introduced to protest their religion from anti-semitic progaganda only to discover that this same restriction has come to back-fire on them,as the same legislation has some strange ability to protect ” radical Islamists”from critisism., if the source of that critisism is white anglo-saxon Canadians–or Jews,it is classified as “hate-speech”.
You wrote “where no one is happy”.
It has been said that if freedom of speech does,nt make hell of a lot of people “unhappy”it is not doing its job.
This freedom is useless if it is not to provoke,ridicule and stimulate self-analysis,because society should be constantly improving itself by becoming ever more educated and aware.
Another misperception is that this freedom is only one pillar of Internatrional Human Rights,out of many,but I percieve it to be the fundamental.central pillar upon which Western civilizations civic freedoms depend upon.

John P Q

I am, and will always call myself a Christian, and I do agree with what you say:

Since my ethics, honour code and philosophy are in large part informed and constructed around my spiritual choices, that means the poster has no respect for me, either.

Fortunately, I’m in a position of not having to care very much. Not everyone is so lucky.

If someone wishes to disrespect my faith, then so be it, let’s talk about cricket!

I have mentioned before I am lucky enough to have friends of many faiths and we can discuss that faith openly and, which is the whole crux of this, with maturity not to be offended at what others say. Some of the jokes are, to say the least, close to the skin – yet it is laughed off or groaned at. What I do find is that all of us have a strength from our faith – once you need declarations such as this all it means is that it is your loss of faith in the very thing you believe in.

[25] Your last sentence probably provides the clue to why the Human Rights Council vote went the way it did. It is a Eurocentric notion that rights inhere in individuals first and foremost rather than equally in families, extended families, clans/tribes – beyond the West this is often seen as form of cultural imperialism.

#27 agree with that.

#26 “What I do find is that all of us have a strength from our faith – once you need declarations such as this all it means is that it is your loss of faith in the very thing you believe in.”

agree with that too. BUT let’s not forget Romans 14.

My view is that a strong secular state ought to give preference to no religion (or none) over another (or none), but create a space/spaces in which believers are able to live out their faith in the the context of their religion (where a religion is seen as a practice), which requires the state to create an atmosphere in which the religion has the potential to flourish. Beyond providing those religions with enough protection to stand or fall on their own merits, the role of the state is to ensure people are free to join and leave different religions as they see fit.

@Mike Killingworth ” beyond the West this is often seen as a form of cultural Imperialism”
My complements.very well put.
Or a dire threat perhaps,to the continuing existence of a particular population control / political belief system.

Journeyman, fankly it’s comments like that that make me see it as a form of cultural imperialism too.

Tim f -

I do agree – I would rather unity in a nation than a theocracy. I am 100% behind a secular nation, and I may add that I believe all nations should be the same in that respect.

Re: Romans – good one!

@tim f

You wrote” Journeyman,frankly its comments like that ,that make me see it as a form of cultural imperialism too ”
I am afraid I am a littile confused as to your reaction:Perhaps I misunderstand. Or perhaps you misunderstand me.
Is it not reasonable to assume that,as with all many religions, in particular the Jeudao-Christian and Islam are comprised of two essential parts.Those that having administrative control of the religion and from my perspective at the same time being much to aware and cynical as to believe in their own doctrine,and the gullible masses that are manipulated into taking it literally,thereby maintaining the position of the upper echelon.
Are you religious perhaps and as my observation offended your sensibilities`.?
Just so I know.
We are talking here about the O.I.C,s “criminalization of the defamation of Islam” proposal are we not ?.
And If so would it not be reasonable for me to assume that our Westen freedoms are percieved as a factor that could undermine its existence, much as 16th century Christianity was not particularly fond of scrutiy itself,for the same reasons.

I can see that some might draw strength from their faith but it’s clear to me that people who are reduced to frothing lunacy by the naming of teddy bears or musicals featuring Christ in a nappy aren’t drawing strength from their superstition, they’re drawing a weakness.

I am religious but it wasn’t my religious sensibilities you offended (see Will’s comment at #26); it was the complete lack of understanding of other cultures that annoyed me.

It’s the blanket portrayal of Islamic culture in non-Western countries as incapable of evolving, purely top-down & adding no value to people’s lives. And of all believers being intellectually inferior to enlightened liberals.

Some expressions of political Islam are clearly attempts to use religion for political gain. But effective challenges to those orders are as likely to come from Muslims who can reconcile their faith with opposition to cruel establishments as they are from exporting liberal values with no understanding of local culture.

that in response to Journeyman, obviously (and obviously I agree with #33)

@tim f
First I must explain that I do not believe that “all believers being intellectually inferior to enlightened liberals.”,although I cannot blame you for making that assumption.
Much to my own suprise and only just recently, although originating from an Irish Catholic background in my childhood,an having been since a devout Atheist,I have developed a appreciation for certain aspects of Christianity,which , I have discovered have a direct bearing upon the freedoms and advances that Western civilization has made.
Among countless other parables ” let him who has not sinned,cast the first stone ” was considering the time period,deserving a round of applause alone.
Which compares to great disadvantage towards certain other cultures that would have no hesitancy in “stoníng the adulterous bitch,as slowly as possible to death.”
If anything,I have begun to find again much to my amazement, Christians more tolerant of debate than Liberals,and the knee-jerk assumption, of intellectual inferiority to enlightened liberals ,I have thankfully recognognized as a form of pretentious, arrogant ,intellectual fascism.
I must beg to differ on your assuption that I have a “complete lack of understanding of other cultures”.
I have a different opinion on Islam,and that could just as well be based on being better informed as oppposed to less informed.
One other crucial point here,concerning the ” Imperialist export of our liberal values”. Who said export? The aim now is to defend liberal values from internal threat,Just exactly who is exporting what. Importing Saudi Arabian standards perhaps.

tim f at 12:35 pm on March 27, 2009

You can be tolerant and respectful of a religion or belief whilst still criticising it.

Yes, or you can treat it with the hatred and ridicule it might deserve. Samuel Butler’s Way of All Flesh is full of hatred for Christianity as practised by nineteenth century Christians, i.e his experience was of a religion that was cruel, intolerant and narrow minded. His Erewhon ridicules religious hypocrisy. Do you think such disrespectulness should be banned by some law or other? Shouldn’t the cruel, intolerant and narrow minded be treated without any respect at all?

“Oh yes you would.”

No I wouldn’t.

“You’d expect the government to license theatres so that they were safe (e.g. adequate fire precautions) and you’d expect that license to include a requirement for third-party liability insurance which your hypothetical theatre owner wouldn’t get in those circumstances. ”

Nope, if you enter a theatre you’re doing so voluntarily and therefore have to accept its conditions. If it became known that certain theatres were dodgy people wouldn’t go to then.

“You would expect the government to do this for theatres, sports arenas etc because it simply isn’t practicable for each individual who wishes to use them to undertake their own risk assessment.”

Agreed, they can use the theatre equivalent of Which instead.

KB

i.e his experience was of a religion that was cruel, intolerant and narrow minded.

I would say that he found those who preached from the pulpit more common than the religion itself.

We see, and the great argument is – utilising the word “religion”. I do oft scratch my head at that – the religion I know and poorly practice is one of love, enlightenment and tolerance. Yet I have hear vile speakers who will take one except from the Bible and go on a spree of hatred.

The history of human kind (Religion-wise) is paved in bloodshed – I would never argue that point. Yet all that bloodshed was and still is propagated by those who wish to use religion, of many faiths, to control the rest of us. As a Liberal and a Christian I cannot agree with that no matter which faith is doing the book thumping.

[39] I don’t believe you. If your daughter went to an unsafe night-club and died there (the process of it becoming “known” that it was “dodgy”) you wouldn’t say “oh, very sad, but it was her free choice. She died to provide the rest of us with market information.”

Or, on reflection, I think you would.

Or, on further reflection, I don’t think you would but you’d say so here for the sake of it.

Talking of theatres and fires – does anybody remember Chris Lynam’s routine which involved him inserting a lit firework into his arse (after stripping naked) then singing “there’s no business like show business” ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYorcCJBKCM

I heard the stage-curtains went up in flames during one show (possibly at a theatre in Norwich).

A member of the audience said ‘tears (of laughter) were still rolling down my face as I was carried out by a fireman”.